Aussie Film Trailer – Tomorrow When the War Began

OK, I’m a bit late on this one, as the teaser trailer was released over the weekend, but this is one Aussie film (made with a fair bit of Paramount’s money) that I have huge, huge hopes for.

Tomorrow When the War Began, is the adaptation of the crazily popular John Marsden young adult fiction novel, and it is aimed squarely at the key movie going demographic – teenagers. This is a film that if successful will produce more than a couple sequels (there are seven novels in the “Tomorrow” series).

For those who don’t know the story, it’s about Australia being invaded by another country and a group of friends having to become resistance fighters – it’s kind of Red Dawn minus the America is the greatest, Russia is evil bull.

The teaser trailer ticks all the boxes. It starts out looking very cheesy – almost as Luke Buckmaster writes at Crikey – like a “shampoo commercial”. And then it changes into an action film.

As ever I showed it to my wife; (she is a big action film fan) and she was full of “Whoah! Looks cool!” And I have to admit I want to see the film as well, and I know were I a teenager, this would be a film I’d be counting down the days to see – especially as it obviously will appeal to both males and females.

It opens September 2 here, not sure when it will open in America. One concern for the film there is that a remake of Red Dawn is being set for release on November 24 and, in an ironic twist, stars two Australian actors, Chris Hemsworth and Isobel Lucas.

Rates up to 4.25%: near the summit, or still at base camp?

Lost in the wonderment of Malcolm Turnbull calling it quits, the RBA raised rates by another 25 basis points (that 0.25% to you non-economic types).

Earlier this year when writing about the Reserve Banks’ “stimulus”, I showed that if rates hit 4.75% by June then the Reserve Banks “stimulus” would look like this:

Where the numbers on the Y-axis represent the amount the cash rate was below the 10 year average of 5.3%.

So going up to 4.25% still has them 0.5% below what I predicted they would get to by June.

As a home owner, I hope I was not being too optimistic.

But as you can see from the below graph, rates are getting closer to the average mark, and as they get closer the problems for the Government will increase. Up till now the raises in interest rates have been common sense. There is no way anyone with any intelligence on economic matters (ok we’re ruling out Joe Hockey here) expected the RBA to keep rates at 50 year lows.

But as we get into the territory that they were at under Howard (very briefly it must be said) people will be feeling less conciliatory towards any raises.

So let’s have a look at the statement put out by the RBA to justify the increase:

The global economy is growing, and world GDP is expected to rise at close to trend pace in 2010 and 2011. The expansion is still hesitant in the major countries, due to the continuing legacy of the financial crisis, resulting in ongoing excess capacity. In Asia, where financial sectors are not impaired, growth has continued to be quite strong, contributing to pressure on prices for raw materials. The authorities in several countries outside the major industrial economies have now started to reduce the degree of stimulus to their economies.

This will be used by Hockey and Abbott to say the Government should wind back the stimulus, of course ignoring the fact that it already is – the wind back was built into the package.

Australia’s terms of trade are rising, adding to incomes and fostering a build-up in investment in the resources sector. Under these conditions, output growth over the year ahead is likely to exceed that seen last year, even though the effects of earlier expansionary policy measures will be diminishing.

Note that Joe Hockey: “the effect of earlier expansionary policies will be diminishing” – ie the stimulus has actually been wound back. (Here’s hoping someone in the media throws this back at him when he inevitably wheels out the “wind back the stimulus” line). And as for the terms of trade? The Government can’t do much about trying to stop China and India wanting to buy our iron and coal.

Inflation has, as expected, declined in underlying terms from its peak in 2008, helped by a noticeable slowing in private-sector labour costs during 2009, the rise in the exchange rate and the earlier period of slower growth in demand. CPI inflation has risen somewhat recently as temporary factors that had been holding it to quite low rates are now abating. Inflation is expected to be consistent with the target in 2010.

Inflation is expected to be consistent with the target in 2010 – ie nothing in the Government's stimulus is causing inflation to increase such that the RBA wants to raise rates to kill it, and that is always the big concern with Budget deficits – if they are causing inflation to increase, then the only way it will be reduced is through interest rate rises. That is NOT the case with this rise.

The Board judges that with growth likely to be around trend and inflation close to target over the coming year, it is appropriate for interest rates to be closer to average. Today’s decision is a further step in that process.

Which means, the RBA wants to get to that average. What is the average? Well Glenn Stevens said somewhere around 5% (though the average for the nine years from September 99 to September 2008, just prior to the Global Financial Crisis, was 5.5%).

And therein lies the danger for the Government. The coming Budget will be closely watched, if commentators believe it to be too expansionary, it will be harder and harder for Rudd and Swan to say they are innocent of any blame for interest rate rises, especially if they go over the average.

They’re not at that point yet, but in an election year, a Government that thinks it can not worry about interest rates, is a Government fooling itself.  

Turnbull – Burning Out, and Fading Away

For football supporters there’s nothing worse than a player who has so much obvious talent and potential for greatness, but who through stupidity, or lack of discipline never reaches the highest level. Supporters will spend seasons hoping that this year will be the year, but alas it is not to be, and thus the calls to sports-talk-back programs start calling for him to be dumped: the great draft pick who amounted to nought.

Which brings us to today and how after less than 6 years it is all over – the “stellar” (according to Dennis Shanahan) career of Malcolm Turnbull MP is finished. He announced it via twitter, and thereby crashed his own website as people madly clicked on the link to read his resignation letter.

At such a time it is good to hear what those around him have to say. Here’s Tony Abbott:

"Malcolm is the best person to lead our party," he told SBS. "I think he is the best person to lead us to the next election.
"He is better qualified than anyone – myself included – to take the economic fight to the government.

Oh wait, that was Abbott talking about Turnbull last July. Nice how things change in politics isn’t it?

There are others around who can do the summing up of Turnbull’s career, for myself I’ll just say he was never as good as everyone thought he could be. As Environment Minister he was undistinguished, and he had no impact during Question Time. As Shadow Treasury Spokesperson he got some good deliveries in early against Swan, but as soon as Swan got his eye in, he was rarely troubled. Here’s what I wrote back in July 2008 of Turnbull’s work during a Question Time:

Going back to the tennis analogy, many think Turnbull will be Federer to Rudd’s Hewitt (Howard being the past-his-best Sampras). The argument is that once he takes over, the numbers will turn and it’ll be an LNP Grand Slam in 2010.

I’m not so sure. Mostly this is because Turnbull has failed to ace Wayne Swan despite the Treasurer spending much of the first sitting period of parliament looking and sounding nervous and unprepared. In March, all the talk was about how soon it would be before Rudd replaces Swan. Since the budget, this talk has died. During the last parliament session Swan at times laughed openly at some of Turnbull’s questions. He appeared well-briefed, confident, and most importantly looked to be enjoying Question Time.
…
Such a performance by Turnbull really should not be surprising; he was a poor performer last year as a Minister in parliament. In spite of this, I thought he would be better in opposition (lawyers are good at asking questions), but too often he falls into the trap of trying to be clever, and instead comes across as being too clever by half. In retrospect this should also not have been surprising – it was the great failing of his performance during the Republic referendum.

It is in his nature. It won’t change if he takes over the leadership.

This was shown to be true in October when Turnbull over-reached himself in Question Time and pretty well demanded Rudd sack Ken Henry. I wrote then:

Malcolm Turnbull is a fine lawyer, but he is no politician - he is too interested in differences in the meanings of words instead of differences in policies.

Of course this all led to (what seems now) the inevitable conclusion of the Godwin Grech Affair. But Turnbull had lost me well before then, due to his low grade chasing of the far right with his asylum seeker position. In March 2009 I wrote of his decisions to advocate bringing back Temporary Protection Visas (a policy first advocated by Pauline Hanson) that:

I used to have respect for Turnbull -thought he could be a good leader once he got out from under Howard's thumb. But no more. I swear he would say 'God Save the Queen' is his favourite song if it meant he got another vote. I hope he survives as leader till the next election so I can see him lose. And lose by a lot.

Now obviously Turnbull (and probably Hockey) doesn't worry about China's influence on Australia - after all the Libs loved China when it was handing money to us hand over fist - and say what you like about Turnbull, he is a decent person. Which makes it all the more damnable when he plays this line. All he and Joe are doing is playing the old "Yellow peril" gambit. They hope to appeal to those who are suspicious that Kevin Rudd speaks Mandarin - the type who call him Chairman KRudd.

The main reason I was so angry about Turnbull’s position is that after 12 years we finally had a Liberal leader who could have taken the high road and not made refugees a political issue. It would have elevated politics in this country onto a much higher plane; he choose not to, and in the end paid the price, because by fawning to the right wing he was seeking approval from those who would never totally trust him. His shift on this issue only encouraged them to think they could use him like a puppet, and when he didn’t do their bidding over the ETS, all was lost.

That too of course was foreseeable. In September 2008 I wrote of the five Libs who changed their vote from Nelson to Turnbull: “Secret Seven Wins Through, or Five Get in a fix”.

According to Steven Lewis, the crucial voting block that switched to Malcolm Turnbull were seven MPs from NSW: Tony Abbott, Concetta Fierravanti-Wells, Bronwyn Bishop, Louise Markus, Alex Hawke, Joe Hockey, and Helen Coonan.
…
The big problem for Turnbull is that aside from wanting to have a Liberal Government, there are bugger all issues on which he would agree with any of the above infamous five [Abbott, Fierravanti-Wells, Bishop, Markus and Hawke](especially on social issues).

So why did they vote for him? Well obviously because they want to win government, and rightly believe Turnbull is a better chance than Nelson. But the important thing is Turnbull won by only four votes, and while that group of five desperately want to win the next election; as the right wing of the NSW State Liberal Party has shown, they can be more concerned with ensuring the party stays deeply conservative, even if it results in an election loss.

So what does Turnbull have to do? Well pretty much improve the Lib's position in the polls to the extent that he doesn't have to worry about those five (and other far-right wing MPs in the party) looking for another candidate. If he improves the polls, many of those who stayed with Nelson purely to give him a fair go, will quickly move to Turnbull's side and his majority in the party will be strong.

But even then, the five will be a vocal minority; and will not stand for too much Wentworth style "small "L" liberalism" from Turnbull, which is unfortunate, because that's who he is, and Turnbull does not have a history of changing for anyone. Interesting times ahead.

And they were interesting times, and for all the eulogies today, what really is startling is that Turnbull was only one lousy vote away from keeping his job – a lousy vote rendered even more lousy by the fact that a Turnbull supporter, Fran Bailey was in hospital at the time and unable to vote, and the weekend after the spill the by-elections in Bradfield and Higgins elected two MPs who also would likely have supported Turnbull.

But that’s politics.

On the day of the spill I wrote:

As an aside, I think this has done wonders for Turnbull. He loses, but loses with his credibility intact. My hope for him is that the lesson he takes from today is that he is at his best when he sticks to principle and policy. Turnbull lost his way by stupidly trying to bring Rudd down through some huge conspiracy and also a dumb tendency to go against his instincts and pander to the right – he never sounded credible on asylum seekers. Turnbull, if he chooses to stick around, may be later seen as a saviour of the moderates – and if he sticks to principles and policy he may actually become the leader everyone thinks he is capable of being. But that may be for another time.

You see, Turnbull worried me as an ALP supporter, because I thought if he could be as good as we all thought he could be, then he might make an excellent PM. Think of his excellent speech on the ETS made in February. It was a speech the country had been crying out to be made by someone in the Government, and yet it was left to Turnbull to make it.

But he was not made for the Westminster System. Turnbull was more suited to running for President (where he would obviously be a Democrat). His speeches would have won the nation over, his lack of need to toe the party line would have carried him to victory. Nothing about him suggested party man; that he is calling it quits after 6 years only reinforces that. True it is probably best for the Party that he leave – he could only ever be leader or back bencher, and he was never going to be leader again, so why take up space on the backbench – but that’s not why he made this decision.

In the end what really strikes as sad about his decision, is the lack of impact it really has on the political landscape. When Costello retired you could hear the sighs of relief throughout the Parliament from both Rudd and Turnbull. No one saw Turnbull as leadership challenger to Abbott, and so his decision doesn’t really solidify Abbott’s support – Hockey had already taken on the role of alternative leader; Turnbull’s light had well and truly faded away. 

Turnbull may be one of the larger than life figures of Australia’s last 30 years, but in history of Australian politics he will be nought but a footnote: a cautionary tale for those who think they can rush to the top without caring about “politics”; and for many, someone viewed as the Mr Potential of Australian Politics.

AFL Power Rankings Round Two (or are we already down to 10 teams?)

As 2010 began the Crows’ supporters would have been thinking that this year could be something special – the young kids were a year older and the old guys were ready for one last roar. The Fremantle supporters on the other hand would have been hoping that this year wouldn’t be yet another “rebuilding” year.

Now just two weeks in to the season the Crows are terrible and will be lucky to win a game; Fremantle are playing like they think they’re a good chance to make the eight.

A season can unravel so quickly, and likewise expectations can be altered in just two weeks.

Of the sides out of the current top eight, I can only see Sydney and the Bulldogs being a chance to make the finals. Melbourne, Adelaide, North and Richmond won’t get there (even if the Crows start to win – which I don’t see happening – their percentage will mean they will have to win one more game than another team just to make the finals). West Coast couldn’t beat Port at home, so you won’t figure that they will get enough wins.

Essendon were always likely to be the team to go backwards from last year, and they play Carlton, Collingwood and Hawthorn in the next 4 weeks which could see them at 1-5 after 6 rounds.

Port have beaten two easy teams (though a win in Perth always has some value). If they trouble the Lions this week I’ll include them in the conversation, but for now I think they’re out of it.

Which (including Port) leaves ten teams that I think can make the finals.

Sport of course never follows such straight forward predictions (after all I never pick 8 wins a week), but if any of the above 6 teams makes the finals, their form will have to make a massive turnaround, and they will need to overcome awful percentages.

	Rank	LW	Team	Record	Comment
	1	1↔	St Kilda	2-0	The Saints were scarily good. They reduced North to a quivering mass. Reiwoldt looks set to battle with Brown for player of the year honours.
	2	3↑	Geelong	2-0	The Cats have come from behind both times this year, which gives them the look of a side that never says die.
	3	2↓	Collingwood	2-0	Collingwood were bloody lucky. They’ll need a lot more than luck to beat the Saints this week.
	4	4↔	Bulldogs	1-1	A worrying stat for the rest of the competition - the Bulldogs kicked 17 goals despite Barry Hall only kicking one of them.
	5	5↔	Hawthorn	1-1	The Hawks got the wobbles just at the end but they have the look of a finals side. A huge game this week against the Bulldogs.
	6	7↑	Brisbane	2-0	Jonathon Brown looks like he is about to have a season where he is actually as good as everyone expects him to be – an MVP level year.
	7	9↑	Sydney	1-1	The Swans gave the Crows a lesson – which doesn’t mean a lot – but they did well to explode their Adelaide hoodoo.
	8	6↓	Carlton	1-1	The Blues were good in defeat, but they need a forward, and they also need their captain back.
	9	10↑	Fremantle	2-0	Michael Barlow has played 2 AFL games, and has both times had more than 30 possessions. It’s an easy game sometimes.
	10	13↑	Port Adelaide	2-0	Port are easily the worst team on 2 wins at the moment. Now they play the Lions, Cats and Saints to see where they really are at.
	11	8↓	Essendon	0-2	The Bombers finished tired and slow – they kicked only 3 goals in the second half.
	12	12↔	West Coast	0-2	The Eagles held the lead at 3 Qtr time, yet couldn’t hold on at home. Not a good sign. The next 3 weeks are North away, Essendon home then Swans away. No gimmies there.
	13	16↑	Melbourne	0-2	The Dees were robbed in the last 5 min by crap umpiring. But some great work by a lot of their young players gives them hope for the year. Should beat the hapless Crows this week.
	14	11↓	Adelaide	0-2	Completely useless. They’d struggle to get a win in the SANFL.
	15	14↓	North Melbourne	0-2	The Roos were embarrassing. They now face the Eagles in Melbourne. If they can’t win that, then they might be 0-5 when they meet Melbourne in Round 6.
	16	15↓	Richmond	0-2	The Tigers were annihilated once again. Now they have to go to Sydney and face a confident Swans outfit.

A couple huge games this week – Saints-Pies, and Bulldogs-Hawks. And if Fremantle beats Geelong at Subiaco this week, the Dockers’ bandwagon will be well and truly firing up.

Big Australia; small minds

On Saturday Kevin Rudd announced that Tony Burke would take on the new role of Minister for Population. The announcement stated:

In his new role, Minister Burke will consider the likely trajectory of population growth and the challenges and opportunities this will create. Minister Burke will also be tasked with developing the cross government frameworks that will be required to make the most of the opportunities, and minimise the risks, associated with population growth.

Australia's first Population Strategy will consider the social and economic infrastructure Australia will need to support a growing population, including the roads, housing and service delivery network.

It will also consider, as an early priority, the opportunities a growing population will create for economic growth and to further develop and grow Australia's regional towns and communities. The policy will bring a whole-of-government perspective drawing on input from all portfolios.

The strategy will also seek to address the challenges associated with population growth, including the impact on the environment, water, and urban congestion.

The essential reason for the appointment as that as the intergenerational report has suggested Australia could be up to 36 million by 2050, there needs be be a hell of a lot of big thinking done on the issue, and we better start doing it now.

In response Tony Abbott in a door stop interview said this:

TONY ABBOTT: I probably should also say, because the Prime Minister has made an announcement about appointing a new Minister for Population, a few words on this subject. It’s very hard to have a population policy if you haven’t got a border protection policy. It’s very hard to have a sustainable population policy if you can’t control our borders, and I would suggest to the Prime Minister that if he is to be taken seriously on population he’s got to be taken seriously on border protection as well.

Yep, he goes straight onto the issue of asylum seekers. The journalists noticing this, bring him up on it:

QUESTION: Is this just a distraction from other issues like the health debate? We’re talking a tiny number of people, like 22,000 people in the past 35 years.

TONY ABBOTT: I think that when you’ve got three boats a week coming, when you’ve got significant numbers of people perishing at sea because they believe the siren song of the people smugglers, because the people smugglers again have a product thanks to changes that this Government has made, I don’t think anyone can be relaxed about this. I think that it’s impossible to be anything other than seriously concerned about this problem because a sovereign country must maintain control of its borders.

QUESTION: [Inaudible] appointing a Population Minister, though?

TONY ABBOTT: You can’t have a population policy without also having a border protection policy. If you can’t control your borders you can’t sustain your population.

Great credit to the journalist for pointing out the lack of numbers that have come to Australia by boat. Abbott’s response shows that he is nothing more than a small-minded scare mongerer. Just grasp this quote:

 You can’t have a population policy without also having a border protection policy. If you can’t control your borders you can’t sustain your population.

I doubt I have ever heard such a intellectually-bereft line spoken by the Leader of a major political party.

Obviously it’s the new Liberal Party slogan because Joe Hockey, in between doing nothing on economic policy, tweeted the following:

what an easter stunt kr [Kevein Rudd] appts a min for population.He is clearly worried about the boats issue!!

But we can pretty much ignore that because Hockey is an utter fool – the personification of an empty suit. Yes, that 22,000 boat people who have come to Australia over the last 35 years is about population. Sigh… That 22,000 which accounts for less than 0.1% of Australia's population. Let me say that again:

LESS THAN 0.1%

But it is obviously the Liberal Party’s official response because Glenn Milne, who clearly earns his pay at the moment by retyping Liberal Party media releases, wrote today:

Abbott and Morrison calculate that if Australians are concerned about Rudd's capacity to contain the flow of illegal migrants to Australia facilitated by people smugglers then they are justifiably going to have similar concerns about Rudd's unilateral declaration that a "Big Australia" of 36 million by 2050 is a good thing that a Labor government can confidently begin implementing.

The Coalition argument will be simple; if the government can't determine who comes to this country and the circumstances in which they come how can they plan for a radical increase in population size with all the implications for infrastructure, water and transport planning such an increase involves? The botched insulation program will surely get a mention, too.

What utter shit. I mean, excuse me, but what utter, utter shit.

Nothing gets me more angry than the way in which the Liberal Party and many elements of the media treat the asylum seeker issue. It is all about scare of the yellow peril. It is all completely racist in its intent. Here’s Scott Morrison:

"When the Coalition started calling for a population debate, the usual charges of racism followed. However, just like with border protection, this would be a dangerous assumption for Labor to make, let alone assert, as they have. If the Prime Minister continues to ignore this issue and tell Australians to just get used to his big Australia idea, it will not be long before he looks back fondly on the days when he only had to explain his border protection failures."

So to refute charges of racism, he links the population debate with border protection, why? What has 22,000 asylum seekers got to do with Australia’s population of 22.2 million? Answer – nothing, but he wants people to think the two are connected, because then he is able to scare people into thinking that if Australia get a population of 35 million there might be 12 million more migrants (probably asylum seekers!) walking around the streets. Or as the Courier Mail would put it “THEY’RE HERE!” (and they’re going shopping!!).

The Libs like to say the issues are linked because under Howard people became less worried about migration. The reason is the ALP does not use migration as a political wedge issue. The ALP in opposition does not try and talk up the terror of migrants or asylum seekers coming to Australia to take our jobs, or our houses and so the issue dies politically.

But the Liberal Party lives and breathes on that scare and hate mongering side of the political wheel.

Morrison also wheels out the usual bull about refugees should come to Australia only in a nice ordered manner:

Like the Coalition, the vast majority of Australians have no problem with accepting our fair share of refugees. They do, however, want to have a say about who comes and want them to apply off shore like everyone else who is seeking to come to Australia, including from refugee camps around the world.

Here’s is Dr Graham Thom of Amnesty on the process of applying off-shore:

There’s no such thing as a “queue”

Disappointingly, the term “queue jumper” is now so deeply entrenched in our nation’s vernacular that some Australian politicians use it interchangeably with the term “asylum seeker”.

Let me be clear and point out that two are not synonymous. In fact, the queue is a myth.
…
The resettlement of refugees through the offshore program is crucially important, and the right thing to do. However, it should be recognised that Australia does not have a legal obligation to operate this program. This ‘responsibility sharing’ or ‘burden sharing’ is something we do as a responsible member of the international community, to alleviate the disproportionate pressures placed on countries like Pakistan.

To be resettled in Australia under the offshore program you must either be referred by the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) or sponsored by someone already living here. If the person sponsoring you is not a family member, or, increasingly, an immediate family member, your chances of success are negligible.

To be referred by UNHCR you must first be allowed to register with UNHCR, then UNHCR must be in a position to be able to refer you to a resettlement country. Last year 75 per cent of all refugees resettled internationally had fled from two countries, Burma and Iraq.

For most refugee populations around the world the opportunities for resettlement, and even registration, are slim, and the future is bleak.

A number of countries in our region refuse to allow UNHCR to even register refugees.

For example, for the last 15 years Bangladesh has refused to allow Burmese refugees to register. Pakistan is now so dangerous UNHCR has had to restrict its operations and Australia’s access has also been severely curtailed. For refugees in these countries and many others, there is no queue.

He then mentions a very important point that is rarely raised by the media:

The origin of the notion of ‘queue jumping’, as Australians understand it in the current refugee debate, lies not in the fact that people living in refugee camps are more deserving of our protection, but in the fact that the previous Australian Government initiated a policy linking the onshore and offshore programs in a fixed quota system.

The linking of the two programs has had a number of very negative consequences. It has meant that an asylum seeker who is granted refugee status onshore is perceived as ‘taking’ a place from a humanitarian entrant offshore. This policy has pitted refugee communities in Australia against each other and created a perception in the Australian community that one refugee group is more deserving than another.

Sadly, it has also fundamentally compromised Australia’s international reputation as a rights-respecting country which recognises that individuals have a fundamental right to flee persecution and seek asylum.

Little wonder that Morrison writes that recent migrants are the ones most against asylum seekers coming by boat – they’re against it because they’re trying to get their own families in (remember the bit about refugees needing a sponsor). But can you imagine the reaction if Rudd delinked the two refugee quotas?

Of course you can – Abbott and Morrison would scream that Rudd has gone soft and given a green light to people smugglers, and the media would mostly go along for the ride. I can hear the talk back radio lines going mad already.

In the past week the best article on the issue in the media came vie Peter van Onselen – a writer I rarely agree with – he wrote in The Australian:

Some commentators point out the unfairness of boatpeople taking up the places of asylum-seekers who have done the right thing and taken refuge in UN-sponsored camps awaiting placement (as if there is always an orderly process for escaping persecution that should be followed).

If that is the concern that needs to be addressed, what's wrong with increasing the annual quota so boatpeople don't take places away from asylum-seekers waiting in camps? We are constantly being told that a big Australia is an important economic goal, so perhaps we could do with the small number of extra citizens. Despite the recent increase in boat arrivals that the opposition is determined to highlight for political advantage, many more people continue to arrive illegally by plane and far fewer of them turn out to be legitimate refugees.

Yet I don't see too many press releases from the opposition attacking this problem (probably because it has always been a problem, including when the Coalition was last in government). And let's not forget that right now Australia houses about 50,000 visa overstayers, mostly from the US, Britain and China.

But the political debate is centred on boatpeople, partly because it plays into people's (inaccurate) fears about hordes of arrivals from underdeveloped countries who threaten our way of life, and partly because opinion polls continue to show that most Australians oppose illegal immigration.

Van Onselen nails the issue – it is all about playing to the fears of people, it has nothing to do with reality. That Abbott, Hockey and Morrison straight away link the issue of population – which in reality is about infrastructure and sustainability of possibly 35 million people – with a minuscule number of boat people (the 4,500 people since 2008 accounts for 0.02% of the population) shows this in spades.

They should be condemned for their small mindedness and meanness.

Flick of the Week: “At least he is not a book burner, you Nazi cow”.

This week’s Flick of the Week takes us with Ray Liotta from his role as Henry Hill in Goodfellas, to that of “Shoeless” Joe Jackson in the baseball fable Field of Dreams.

The 2010 Major League Baseball season begins on Sunday in America with the Yankees meeting the Red Sox at Fenway Park, so it is apt for the this week’s flick of the week to be a film about baseball and one in which a game at Fenway Park is crucial to the story line.

The film, based on the novel “Shoeless Joe” by W.P Kinsella, concerns Ray Kinsella (Kevin Costner) who with his wife (Amy Madigan) has bought a farm despite him having no idea how to farm. One evening while out in his corn field (the farm is in Iowa) he hears a voice saying, “If you build it he will come.” He comes to believe the thing he must build is a baseball field, and that if he does “Shoeless” Joe Jackson – who had been suspended by major league baseball for his role in the throwing of the 1919 World Series by the Chicago White Sox – will come back from the the dead to play. Despite all thinking him mad, he builds the field and sure enough Joe Jackson comes out of the corn field and plays (and so too do other players of the White Sox team, as well as other players of the era).

Ray then hears another voice which he thinks is telling him to seek out recluse author “Terrence Mann” (James Earl Jones) and “ease his pain”, because apparently Mann’s first love was baseball. He thus goes in search of Mann, and takes him to a game at Fenway Park.

The film is a love poem to baseball, a remembrance of things past, and about the connection between fathers and sons. It is up there with The Shawshank Redemption on the list of films that grown men will admit to getting a bit teary while watching.

It’s easy to be cynical about Field of Dreams – it does require you to agree that baseball is the American pastime, and that chasing stupid dreams is worth nearly wrecking your livelihood, it also contains a great deal too much nostalgia for “the sixties”. It’s really a film for baby boomers, but I can cope with that all, because I do love baseball, and also the film is never pretentious in its narrative – it doesn't ask you to think this is the most serious movie you will ever see – it’s not aiming for tears like say “Play it Forward” – and it also shows both Ray and his wife questioning their decision to follow the voice, so the film is never too syrupy.

There are things wrong with it – for a start if you are going to make a film which has the central conceit that Shoeless Joe Jackson is coming back from the dead to play, you think they would have made sure that the actor playing him would bat left-handed as did Joe Jackson, and not right handed as does Liotta. Could you imagine making a film featuring Bradman and having him bat left-handed?

A letter to ESPM’s Sport’s Guy, Bill Simmons also pointed out that as Terrence Mann is a black-radical writer from the 60s there is no way he wouldn’t think to complain that none of the players from the Negro Leagues were able to come back from the dead and play as well. It’s actually a crucial omission by the filmmakers, made I suspect because in the novel the reclusive author is actually J.D. Salinger.

The film has a wonderful cast – Costner in a role perfect for the late 1980s’ Costner; James Earl Jones having just he right amount of gravitas as Terrence Mann, Amy Madigan is feisty as all get out as Ray’s college sweetheart wife, Annie – she’s great in a scene in the local school meeting where the issue is the banning of certain books from the library; Frank Whaley in his “that guy” mode as the young Archie Graham; Burt Lancaster in his last role in an American film (he was 76 at the time); and Timothy Busfield (from TV’s thirtysomething and The West Wing) as Annie’s unbelieving brother Mark.

All work together – never taking the premise too seriously, nor treating it as a joke – the tone is important in such films, and this one gets it perfect. Only at the end when Mann recites the speech about how “people will come” does it feel a bit too self indulgent; but this is quickly erased [SPOILER ALERT!] by one of the most magical endings, when Shoeless Joe explains to Ray (and to the audience) that the whole purpose of the film was not to bring back Shoeless Joe, or to get Mann out of retirement, but that the “he” who will come is Ray’s dead father, and the pain that will be eased is Ray’s as he will be able once again play catch with his dad with whom he had long been estranged. It’s an ending that gets to me every time, maybe because I spent so much time in my youth playing backyard cricket with my dad, and so can relate to the emotions of recapturing lost time.

It’s wonderful film – leave your cynicism to one side and have a magical couple of hours.

Tax Breaks for Nannies? Oh Mister Abbott!

Today on Good Friday for some bizarre reason, Sharman Stone announced the Liberal Party were “exploring policy options for a new childcare approach, including extending existing childcare benefit payments to all in-home carers, including nannies”.

Yes this is serious (April Fool’s Day was yesterday), they’re suggesting a subsidy for nannies. Sometimes I think the Liberal Party just wants to lose. This would have to be the dumbest family/child-care policy since.. oh I don’t know since some fool thought it would be a good idea to tax the top 500 earning companies in Australia to pay for a paid parental leave scheme for everyone that would actually give more money to people purely because they earn more.

When Abbott (and Stone) announced that policy I suggested those on $150k plus could use the money to employ a nanny, now it seems Sharman Stone thinks not only should they be able to use the money from the Government in the form of the Paid Parental Leave to pay for a nanny, but they should also get a tax break for doing so.

Have a look at what Stone said in defence of her plan:

“It should not be dismissed out of hand on the basis that it's for rich mothers. For many mothers it is the only option."

Now maybe I’ve lived a sheltered life, but I have never known anyone who employs a nanny, nor I think have I met anyone who knows of someone who employs a nanny. In New York or London? Sure, but nannies are not part of the Australian culture. And any political party pushing a line that not only should they become more common, but that the Government should subsidise us for them is just conceding credibility on any family/child care issues.

Stone also said:

"A lot of families are really struggling to find the right care. Families are saying to me why can't we have in-home care."

Yeah sure, I’d love a nanny. I’d also like a house cleaner and a gardener. Do I think I need one? No. Do I think the Government should subsidise me for one? Hell no. Just because people would like something, doesn’t mean the Government should chip in to help pay it.

I can’t wait to hear Julia Gillard have fun with this.

But on a serous note, should I get my Government subsidised nanny, I won’t be wanting any old girl working in a bridal shop in Flushing Queens, whose boyfriend just kicked her out in one of those crushing scenes coming by to take care of my kids. A Mrs Doubtfire type? Thank you no. How about Scarlett Johansson from The Nanny Diaries? Well I wouldn’t mind, but I think my wife might have a word or two to say about it. 

No my Government subsidised nanny has be bloody special – she better be able to clean up the house with a bit of magic, fly around the place with her magic umbrella, and know that a spoonful of sugar makes the medicine go down. She also had better be able to teach my girls to sing Do Re Mi and to say goodnight in perfect harmony… oh and she should also be able to make play-clothes out of curtains.

That’s right a combination of Mary Poppins and Maria von Trapp - anything less, and I’m demanding Stone resign!